About


Take On Payments, a blog sponsored by the Retail Payments Risk Forum of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, is intended to foster dialogue on emerging risks in retail payment systems and enhance collaborative efforts to improve risk detection and mitigation. We encourage your active participation in Take on Payments and look forward to collaborating with you.

Take On Payments

September 10, 2018


The Case of the Disappearing ATM

The longtime distribution goal of a major soft drink company is to have their product "within an arm's reach of desire." This goal might also be applied to ATMs—the United States has one of the highest concentration of ATMs per adult. In a recent post, I highlighted some of the findings from an ATM locational study conducted by a team of economics professors from the University of North Florida. Among their findings, for example, was that of the approximately 470,000 ATMs and cash dispensers in the United States, about 59 percent have been placed and are operated by independent entrepreneurs. Further, these independently owned ATMs "tend to be located in areas with less population, lower population density, lower median and average income (household and disposable), lower labor force participation rate, less college-educated population, higher unemployment rate, and lower home values."

This finding directly relates to the issue of financial inclusion, an issue that is a concern of the Federal Reserve's. A 2016 study by Accenture pointed "to the ATM as one of the most important channels, which can be leveraged for the provision of basic financial services to the underserved." I think most would agree that the majority of the unbanked and underbanked population is likely to reside in the demographic areas described above. One could conclude that the independent ATM operators are fulfilling a demand of people in these areas for access to cash, their primary method of payment.

Unfortunately for these communities, a number of independent operators are having to shut down and remove their ATMs because their banking relationships are being terminated. These closures started in late 2014, but a larger wave of account closures has been occurring over the last several months. In many cases, the operators are given no reason for the sudden termination. Some operators believe their settlement bank views them as a high-risk business related to money laundering, since the primary product of the ATM is cash. Financial institutions may incorrectly group these operators with money service businesses (MSB), even though state regulators do not consider them to be MSBs. Earlier this year, the U.S. House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit held a hearing over concerns that this de-risking could be blocking consumers' (and small businesses') access to financial products and services. You can watch the hearing on video (the hearing actually begins at 16:40).

While a financial institution should certainly monitor its customer accounts to ensure compliance with its risk tolerance and compliance policies, we have to ask if the independent ATM operators are being painted with a risk brush that is too broad. The reality is that it is extremely difficult for an ATM operator to funnel "dirty money" through an ATM. First, to gain access to the various ATM networks, the operator has to be sponsored by a financial institution (FI). In the sponsorship process, the FI rigorously reviews the operator's financial stability and other business operations as well as compliance with BSA/AML because the FI sponsor is ultimately responsible for any network violations. Second, the networks handling the transaction are completely independent from the ATM owners. They produce financial reports that show the amount of funds that an ATM dispenses in any given period and generate the settlement transactions. These networks maintain controls that clearly document the funds flowing through the ATM, and a review of the settlement account activity would quickly identify any suspicious activity.

The industry groups representing the independent ATM operators appear to have gained a sympathetic ear from legislators and, to some degree, regulators. But the sympathy hasn't extended to those financial institutions that are accelerating account closures in some areas. We will continue to monitor this issue and report any major developments. Please let us know your thoughts.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

September 10, 2018 in banks and banking, consumer protection, financial services, money laundering, regulations, regulators, third-party service provider | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 2, 2018


Advice to Fintechs: Focus on Privacy and Security from Day 1

Fintech continues to have its moment. In one week in early March, I attended three Boston-area meetings devoted to new ideas built around the blockchain, open banking APIs, and apps for every conceivable wrinkle in personal financial management.

"Disruptive" was the vocabulary word of the week.

But no matter how innovative, disruptive technology happens within an existing framework of consumer protection practices and laws. Financial products and tools—whether a robofinancial adviser seeking to consolidate your investment information or a traditional checking account at a financial institution—are subject to laws and regulations that protect consumers. As an attorney speaking at one of the Boston meetings put it, "The words 'unfair,' 'deceptive,' and 'misleading' keep me up at night."

A failure to understand the regulatory framework can play out in various ways. For example, in a recent survey of New York financial institutions (FI)s by the Fintech Innovation Lab, 60 percent of respondents reported that regulatory, compliance, or security issues made it impossible to move fintech proposals into proof-of-concept testing. Great ideas, but inadequate infrastructure.

To cite another example, in 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau took action against one firm for misrepresenting its data security practices. And just last month, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reached a settlement with another firm over allegations that the firm had inadequately disclosed both restrictions on funds availability for transfer to external bank accounts and consumers' ability to control the privacy of their transactions. Announcing the settlement, acting FTC chairman Maureen Ohlhausen pointed out that it sent a strong message of the "need to focus on privacy and security from day one."

As Ohlhausen made clear, whoever the disrupter—traditional financial institution or garage-based startup—consumer protection should be baked in from the start. At the Boston meetings, a number of entrepreneurs advocated a proactive stance for working with regulators and urged that new businesses bring in compliance expertise early in product design. Good advice, not only for disrupters but also for innovation labs housed in FIs, FIs adopting third-party technology, and traditional product design.

Photo of Claire Greene By Claire Greene, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

April 2, 2018 in innovation, regulations, regulators | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

December 4, 2017


What Will the Fintech Regulatory Environment Look Like in 2018?

As we prepare to put a bow on 2017 and begin to look forward to 2018, I can’t help but observe that fintech was one of the bigger topics in the banking and payments communities this year. (Be sure to sign up for our December 14 Talk About Payments webinar to see if fintech made our top 10 newsworthy list for 2017.) Many industry observers would likely agree that it will continue to garner a lot of attention in the upcoming year, as financial institutions (FI) will continue to partner with fintech companies to deliver client-friendly solutions.

No doubt, fintech solutions are making our daily lives easier, whether they are helping us deposit a check with our mobile phones or activating fund transfers with a voice command in a mobile banking application. But at what cost to consumers? To date, the direct costs, such as fees, have been minimal. However, are there hidden costs such as the loss of data privacy that could potentially have negative consequences for not only consumers but also FIs? And what, from a regulatory perspective, is being done to mitigate these potential negative consequences?

Early in the year, there was a splash in the regulatory environment for fintechs. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) began offering limited-purpose bank charters to fintech companies. This charter became the subject of heated debates and discussions—and even lawsuits, by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and the New York Department of Financial Services. To date, the OCC has not formally begun accepting applications for this charter.

So where will the fintech regulatory environment take us in 2018?

Will it continue to be up to the FIs to perform due diligence on fintech companies, much as they do for third-party service providers? Will regulatory agencies offer FIs additional guidance or due diligence frameworks for fintechs, over and above what they do for traditional third-party service providers? Will one of the regulatory agencies decide that the role of fintech companies in financial services is becoming so important that the companies should be subject to examinations like financial institutions get? Finally, will U.S. regulatory agencies create sandboxes to allow fintechs and FIs to launch products on a limited scale, such as has taken place in the United Kingdom and Australia?

The Risk Forum will continue to closely monitor the fintech industry in 2018. We would enjoy hearing from our readers about how they see the regulatory environment for fintechs evolving.

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

 

December 4, 2017 in banks and banking, financial services, innovation, mobile banking, regulations, regulators, third-party service provider | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

September 18, 2017


The Rising Cost of Remittances to Mexico Bucks a Trend

From time to time, I like to look back at previous Risk Forum activities and see what payment topics we've covered and consider whether we should revisit any. In September 2012, the Risk Forum hosted the Symposium on 1073: Exploring the Final Remittance Transfer Rule and Path Forward. Seeing that almost five years have passed since that event, I decided I'd take another, deeper look to better understand some of the effects that Section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act has had on remittances since then. I wrote about some of my findings in a paper.

As a result of my deeper look, I found an industry that has been rife with change since the implementation of Section 1073 rules, from both a regulatory and technology perspective. Emerging companies have entered the landscape, new digital products have appeared, and several traditional financial institutions have exited the remittance industry. In the midst of this change, consumers' average cost to send remittances has declined.

Conversely, the cost to send remittances within the largest corridor, United States–Mexico, is rising. The rising cost is not attributable to the direct remittance fee paid to an agent or digital provider but rather to the exchange rate margin, which is the exchange rate markup applied to the consumer's remittance over the interbank exchange rate. As remittances become more digitalized and the role of in-person agents diminishes, I expect the exchange rate margin portion of the total cost of remittance to continue to grow.

Even though the average cost of sending remittances to Mexico is on the rise, I found that consumers have access to a number of low-cost options. The spread between the highest-cost remittance options and the lowest-cost options is significant.

Figure-11

With greater transparency than ever before in the remittance industry, consumers now have the ability to find and use low-cost remittance options across a wide variety of provider types and product options. To read more about the cost and availability of remittances from the United States to Mexico and beyond in a post-1073-rule world, you can find the paper here.

Photo of Douglas King By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

 

September 18, 2017 in payments risk, regulations, regulators, remittances, Section 1073, transmitters | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 3, 2017


Governance Down Under

When I was a product manager responsible for faster ACH, I had a ringside seat to the lengthy maneuvering required to garner sufficient votes to mandate same-day ACH after the first attempt failed. We can anticipate similar maneuvering as we continue making fundamental improvements to payments, including the various initiatives under way around faster payments.

All of this harkens back to a compelling conference presentation that treasury representatives of a very large U.S. retailer gave several years ago. That presentation focused on the potential benefits of adopting a comprehensive, self-regulating governance model like Australia's. The Australian Payments Clearing Association (APCA) offers key payment stakeholders a seat at the table, thus balancing competing interests among parties in the payment chain.

I agree that the APCA could offer a template for any governance model being contemplated in the United States.

The APCA, to paraphrase, characterizes itself as being responsible for managing and developing regulations, procedures, policies, and standards governing payments clearing and settlement. Standing with and behind them is the authority conferred by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA), that country's central bank.

The 100-plus APCA members include a broad cross section of financial institutions, major retailers, and payments providers. The APCA board comprises an independent chair, the chief executive officer, two additional independent directors, eight nonvoting appointed or elected directors, and an RBA representative.

The expected completion later this year of a new payments system will be one of the APCA's more noteworthy achievements. The New Payments Platform, or NPP, will offer a low-value, faster payments service. The APCA partnered with 12 financial institutions to fund the NPP's development costs.

The APCA is divided among the following operational areas:

  • Checks
  • Direct debit/credit—is equivalent to ACH in the United States
  • Wire transfers
  • Cash—sets rules for the exchange and distribution of cash among participating financial institutions
  • Card issuers/acquirers—sponsors a forum for collaboration
  • COIN (Community of Interest Network)—offers a shared infrastructure supporting connectivity for payments such as checks, direct debit and credit, cards, bill pay, and others

Here in the United States, the Federal Reserve has already created a couple of agencies with some similar features: a task force on faster payments and another task force focused more broadly on secure payments for legacy and emerging payments. Both task forces include broad representation from financial institutions, payment providers, businesses, consumer groups, regulators, law enforcement, and others. Perhaps the biggest difference between the APCA and these two work groups is the ad-hoc, limited duration of the Fed groups and their mandate, which is limited to an advisory role. But there are some other activities that the APCA handles that here in the United States are handled by various disparate entities, a situation that hampers coordinated action.

What are your views on what, if anything, we should do to enhance payments governance in the United States?

Photo of Steven Cordray  By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk  Forum at the Atlanta Fed

April 3, 2017 in payments systems, regulators | Permalink

Comments

Hi, thanks for the complements about our country's payment landscape. However, you seem to have the idea that the New Payments Platform grew organically out of altruistic efforts by the APCA. It didn't quite happen like that..

In 2007, BPAY (The bill payment platform opeartor) together with the major Australian banks tried to develop another platform called MAMBO (Me and My Bank Online) which would provide more account portability and faster payments. However, due to delays and increasing costs, several banks pulled out and the project was cancelled in 2011.

Then in 2012 the Reserve Bank of Australia demanded that they develop a real time payments platform by 2016, so they got together again and came up with the New Payments Platform, and although it will be a year late (expect late 2017), things are looking good.

One other takeout is that ANZ Bank's deputy CEO Graham Hodges said that MAMBO probably would have worked if it was built by a single bank rather than by a congress of institutions (source: ZDNet article). The NPP is being designed and built by SWIFT.

Posted by: Liron | April 5, 2017 at 01:47 AM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

January 30, 2017


Pssst…Have You Heard about PSD2?

No, I'm not talking about the latest next-generation video gaming console. I am referring to the revised Directive on Payment Services (PSD2) that the European Parliament adopted in October 2015 and that will serve as the legal foundation for a single market for European Union (EU) payments. The original PSD was adopted in 2007 but, according to official statements, the Parliament found that an update was necessary to incorporate new types of payment services, improve consumer protection, strengthen payment transaction security, and increase competitiveness with an expected result of lower consumer fees in the payments processing market. PSD2 applies only to digital payments and must be in force in all EU countries by January 13, 2018.

The directive and subsequent implementation rules that the European Banking Authority* is developing make a number of major changes in the European banking landscape, including:

  • Opens up the regulated financial services system to merchants and processors who might initiate payments on their consumer customer's behalf as well as data aggregator firms. In particular, PSD2 will apply to any financial institutions already operating within the scope of the PSD but will also apply to third parties such as operators of e-commerce marketplaces, gift card and loyalty plans, bill payment service providers, public communication networks, account access services, mobile wallets, and those who receive payment by direct debit.
  • Requires financial institutions, upon the request of their customers, to allow these approved nonbank, third parties significant, but not unlimited, access to the customer's account and transaction data through APIs (application program interfaces). Many financial institutions see having to turn over customer data to potential competitors as a significant threat to the retention of their customer's business as well as concerns with data security.
  • Sets out two-factor customer authentication as an absolute minimum, with additional security such as one-time passwords required for higher-value transactions. The card issuer must actively authenticate all transactions above 10 euros. Critics of these provisions point out that the criminals will have fixed transaction amounts and authentication methodology information to modify their attacks.
  • Supplementing card interchange limits imposed in December 2015, prevents merchants from adding surcharges to payment card transactions. Under the original directive, each country established rules regarding surcharging on card payments. It has been a common practice of European merchants to levy a surcharge on payment card transactions to offset the interchange fee paid to issuers.

While such a comprehensive single package of regulations is unlikely to occur in the United States, various flavors of these items have been and continue to be discussed. Do you favor such types of regulation here in the United States? I suspect the answer depends on your role in the payments ecosystem. I am interested in hearing from you.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed



_______________________________________

* Final rules are expected to be published in January 2017.


January 30, 2017 in emerging payments, mobile payments, payments, payments risk, payments systems, regulations, regulators, risk | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

August 1, 2016


FFIEC Weighs In On Mobile Channel Risks

In late April, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) released new guidance regarding mobile banking and mobile payments risk management strategies. Titled "Appendix E: Mobile Financial Services," the document becomes part of the FFIEC's Information Technology Examination Handbook. While the handbook is for examiners to use to "determine the inherent risk and adequacy of controls at an institution or third party providing MFS" (for mobile financial services), it can also be a useful tool for financial institutions to better understand the expectations that examiners will have when conducting an exam of an institution's MFS offering.

Consistent with examiners' focus on third-party relationships for the last several years, the document points out that MFS often involves engagement with third parties and that the responsibilities of the parties in those relationships must be clearly documented and their compliance closely managed. Other key areas the document reviews include:

  • Mobile application development, maintenance, security, and attack threats
  • Enrollment controls to authenticate the customer's identity and the payment credentials they are adding to a mobile wallet
  • Authentication and authorization, emphasizing that financial institutions should not use mobile payment applications that rely on single-factor methods of authentication.
  • Customer education efforts to support the adoption of strong security practices in the usage of their mobile devices

The document also identifies and reviews strategic, operational, compliance, and reputation risk issues for the various elements of a financial institution's MFS offering. The final section of the document outlines an examiner's work plan for reviewing an MFS program with seven key objectives. I believe that it would be time well spent for the institution's MFS team to assume the role of examiner and use the work plan as a checklist to help effectively identify and manage the risks associated with an MFS program.

Photo of David Lott By David Lott, a payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

August 1, 2016 in bank supervision, banks and banking, financial services, mobile banking, mobile payments, regulations, regulators, third-party service provider | Permalink

Comments

Looking forward to welcoming David Lott to our upcoming Next Money Tampa Bay meetup.

David will be our keynote on Wednesday, Sept 21, 2016 6:00 ~ 8:00 PM

Tampa Bay Wave Venture Center
500 East Kennedy Boulevard 3rd FL
Tampa Florida 33602

All are welcome to attend RSVP at

https://www.meetup.com/NextMoneyTPA/events/233171815/

Posted by: Bruce Burke | August 6, 2016 at 05:22 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

April 18, 2016


"I want to be alone; I just want to be alone"

This was spoken forlornly by the Russian ballerina Grusinskaya in the 1932 film Grand Hotel by the famously reclusive screen star Greta Garbo. This movie line causes me to occasionally wonder why we all can't just be left alone. Narrowed to payments, why does paying anonymously have to indicate you are hiding something nefarious?

Some of you may be asking why it would be necessary to hide anything. I offer the following examples of cases when someone would want to pay anonymously, either electronically or with cash.

  • Make an anonymous contribution to a charitable or political organization to avoid being hounded later for further contributions.
  • Make a large anonymous charitable contribution to avoid attention or the appearance of self-aggrandizement.
  • Recompense someone in need who may or may not be known personally with no expectation or wish to be repaid.
  • Pay anonymously at a merchant to avoid being tracked for unwelcome solicitations and offers.
  • Make a purchase for a legal but socially-frowned-upon good or service.
  • Shield payments from scrutiny for medical procedures or pharmacy purchases that are stigmatized.
  • Personally, use an anonymous form of payment to avoid letting my wife find out what she will be getting as a gift. (Don't worry; my spouse never reads my blogs so she doesn't know she needs to dig deeper to figure out what she is getting.)

Some of these cases can be handled easily with the anonymity of cash. As cash becomes less frequently used or accepted or perhaps even unsafe or impractical, what do we have as an alternative form of payment? Money orders such as those offered by the U.S. Postal Service are an option. The postal service places a cap of $1,000 on what can be paid for in cash. Nonreloadable prepaid cards such as gift cards offer some opportunity as long as the amount is below a certain threshold. Distributed networks like bitcoin offer some promise but may come with greater oversight and regulations in the future. Some emerging payment providers claim to offer services tailored for anonymous payments. Still, though, the future for a truly anonymous, ubiquitous payment alternative like cash doesn't look promising, given the current regulatory climate.

I acknowledge that one needs to find a proper balance between vigorously tackling financial fraud, money laundering, and terrorist financing and the need that I think most of us share for regulators and others to keep out of our personal business unless a compelling reason justifies such an intrusion. Consequently, we should be scrupulous about privacy but offer the investigatory tools when payments are used for nefarious purposes to identify the activities and the people involved. In many ways, this balancing act dovetails with the highly charged debate going on between the value of encryption and the needs of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to have the investigatory tools to read encrypted data. As Greta Garbo famously said and perhaps inadvertently foretold, some of us just want to be left alone.

Photo of Steven Cordray By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

April 18, 2016 in privacy, regulators | Permalink

Comments

I like the open network and transparency that the blockchain offers. I find cash inefficient.

Posted by: Laura | April 20, 2016 at 11:12 AM

Upper middle-income and upper income consumers may not use cash much, but while shopping in certain big-box retailers, I have witnessed many consumers carrying lots of cash.

Posted by: John Olsen | April 18, 2016 at 02:04 PM

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

November 23, 2015


Bitcoin's Bright Side

My kids' anticipation for the holiday season is at an all-time high because of the upcoming release of the new Star Wars movie. They are fans of Yoda, Chewbacca, and Luke, but are obsessed with the "Dark Side" and its band of characters, most notably Darth Vader. There is something about the mystery of the "dark side" that draws people in. Perhaps that is one reason that so much of the media coverage and discussion of Bitcoin has been focused on its being the preferred payment instrument for criminal enterprises.

Because the Bitcoin protocol does allow for a level of anonymity that is attractive to criminals, the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act compliance risks are heightened for transactions with bitcoin. Over the past several years, companies have emerged within the Bitcoin ecosystem seeking to make it more accessible to obtain and easier to use for legitimate payments. But how do they manage the BSA/AML compliance risks?

To minimize these risks, companies in the Bitcoin ecosystem are adopting policies, practices, and procedures that leverage the transparency but also minimize risks associated with the level of anonymity Bitcoin offers. These practices are intended to make Bitcoin a safer payment system, while also enhancing the ability of financial institutions, which might otherwise be cautious about the BSA/AML risks, to bank Bitcoin-related companies successfully.

The Retail Payments Risk Forum took a deep dive into the types of companies entering the Bitcoin ecosystem, assessing the regulatory landscape and identifying measures that these companies can take to fulfill regulatory obligations and minimize BSA/AML regulatory compliance risks. Among one of the measures identified in a paper available on the Atlanta Fed's website, Bitcoin-related companies should have a BSA/AML compliance program in place that is led by a dedicated compliance officer with support from a staff of professionals.

Just as in the Star Wars movies, which depict the ongoing struggle between the good guys—the Rebels—and the Dark Side, Bitcoin will continue to have a tug of war between the good forces and the bad. While the criminal element will continue to force attention to the risks of Bitcoin, it will be up to the new entrants into the Bitcoin ecosystem to mitigate these risks if Bitcoin is to enter the mainstream. Details on managing BSA/AML risks associated with Bitcoin can be found in the paper.

By Douglas A. King, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

November 23, 2015 in regulations, regulators | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

November 2, 2015


Will NACHA's Same-Day ACH Rules Change Be an Exception-Only Service, At Least in the Short Term?

In May 2015, the 40-plus voting members of NACHA contingently approved mandating the acceptance of domestic same-day ACH payments by receiving banks. The voting members approved a three-phase development lasting 18 months. The first phase, starting in September 2016, is limited to credit pushes, followed one year later by debit pulls in the second phase. All payments are subject to a $25,000 maximum. By the final phase in March 2018, receiving banks will be required to make credit payments available to the receiving account holder by 5 p.m. local time to the receiving bank. Funds availability in the earlier phases is by the receiving bank's end-of-processing day. The service offers both a morning and afternoon processing window. A same-day return-only service is offered at the end of the business day. Lastly, originating banks are obligated to pay a 5.2 cent fee for every payment to recover costs to receiving banks.

Last month, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors removed the contingent part of the above approval by allowing the participation of FedACH, which serves as an ACH operator on behalf of the Reserve Banks. Approval followed a review of comments submitted by the public, of which a preponderance of the responses was favorable to FedACH participating in the service.

This was not the first time NACHA tried to mandate same-day ACH. Back in August 2012, a ballot initiative to mandate acceptance failed to receive a supermajority required for passage. Failure was due to a variety of reasons, and it was difficult to discern one overriding reason.

I think that most observers would agree that the earlier rollout of the Fed's proprietary opt-in, same-day service in August 2010 and April 2013 set the groundwork for mandating same-day.

As with any collaborative organization like NACHA, compromises were needed to garner sufficient votes for passage. The compromises included:

  • Same-day payment eligibility rules change due to a multi-phase development cycle requiring one-and-half years to complete from start to finish.
  • Providing certainty to the receiver that funds availability will be expedited on the day of settlement as part of the final phase, rather than earlier, which only requires posting by the receiving bank's end-of-processing day. The bank's end-of-processing day can be as late as the morning of the following business day.
  • Delaying a debit service by one year after the rollout of the phase one credit service will, to the potential surprise of the payment originator, delay settlement of debits one business day later than would occur for credits.
  • Any payment amount over $25,000 will settle one business day later than the payment originator may have expected if the payment originator is not aware of the payment cap.

Given these compromises, what do you think financial institutions can do to accelerate broader adoption of same-day?

By Steven Cordray, payments risk expert in the Retail Payments Risk Forum at the Atlanta Fed

November 2, 2015 in ACH, regulations, regulators | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear until the moderator has approved them.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign in

Google Search



Recent Posts


Archives


Categories


Powered by TypePad